Case Study - Bay County - Technical Consulting and Solution DesignSample case study
KCompute
SLED Case Study - Michigan - 2026

Professional Consulting Services for the Bay County Materials Management Plan

KCompute Materials Management Plan delivery for Bay County, Michigan, under Michigan Public Act 451, Part 115 with GIS, data, and public engagement traceability.

Client / activityBay County Department of Environmental Affairs and Community Development
Issuing officeBay County Finance Department, Purchasing Division
Client / marketSLED / Materials Management Planning
Due date4:30 pm EST, November 7, 2022
RFP referenceRFP 2023-02, Reference 0533044476
Project siteBay County, Michigan
011

Unified platform

Portal, workflow, documents, and reporting in one operating layer.

024

Workflow lanes

Intake, assignment, approval, and closure designed as reusable flows.

0324/7

Service visibility

Dashboards and status trails available to authorized users.

02 - Executive summary

Four sentences - challenge, role, delivery, result.

01The challenge

Bay County had to replace an outdated solid-waste planning model with a Materials Management Plan aligned to Michigan PA 451, Part 115.

02Our role

KCompute served as an AI and technology subcontractor supporting GIS data, workflows, requirements traceability, and public-facing deliverable structure.

03What we delivered

We structured the delivery around data collection, benchmark review, stakeholder engagement, GIS mapping, draft deliverables, and final adoption support.

04The result

The plan format ties scope, work products, compliance evidence, and performance indicators directly to SOW Section 13 expectations.

03 - The context

A 2015 solid-waste plan no longer fit Michigan's new materials-management law.

Bay County needed support to move from a disposal-oriented solid waste plan toward a broader materials management program covering reduce, reuse, recycling, organics, recovery, public input, and performance tracking.

  • The existing plan did not reflect the requirements and intent of the newer materials management statute.
  • Municipal engagement required structured input, issue tracking, and clear public-facing communication.
  • Historical data, facility information, and geographic service areas had to be organized for analysis.
  • Recommendations needed to be traceable back to requirements, deliverables, and adoption steps.

04 - Our solution

A discovery-led, GIS-driven delivery across Tasks 1-7.

We led with a discovery sprint to organize EGLE Section 13 requirements, map content needs, define data tracks, and sequence the plan around work products the county could review and approve.

As KCompute's subcontracted technology team, we structured data requirements, GIS support, traceability, document workflows, and delivery coordination around the MMP schedule.

  1. Month 1 - Kickoff, data request, SOW review
  2. Month 2 - Benchmark review and public engagement plan
  3. Month 3 - GIS data collection and current-state inventory
  4. Month 4 - Requirements matrix and gap analysis
  5. Month 5 - Draft MMP sections and stakeholder review
  6. Month 6-7 - Public engagement support and revisions
  7. Month 8 - Final deliverables and adoption support

05 - Project evidence layer

Artifacts that make the project story easier to inspect.

GIS / service area view

A visual slot for maps, facility inventories, service regions, or geographic planning overlays.

Delivery dashboard

A reusable area for project progress, KPI snapshots, acceptance status, and executive reporting views.

Traceability matrix

Use this panel for requirement mapping, compliance evidence, review cycles, and submission-ready deliverable references.

01Discover
02Structure
03Deliver
04Validate
05Adopt

06 - Results and outcomes

Numbers tied directly to SOW Section 13 performance standards.

Primary outcome1

100% SOW Section 13 and EGLE technical requirements were mapped into the Materials Management Plan delivery framework.

01Traceable requirement matrix

Each plan section connects back to the statutory and SOW requirement it satisfies.

02GIS-enabled planning view

Facility, service area, and materials-flow data can be represented geographically.

03Public input trail

Stakeholder feedback and response actions can be tracked through plan revisions.

04Adoption-ready package

Deliverables are organized for review, approval, and submission support.

Proof points
Michigan PA 451, Part 115 materials management requirementsEGLE Materials Management Plan guidanceBay County SOW Section 13 performance expectationsPublic engagement and documentation expectations

07 - Technologies and compliance

Exact tools and frameworks from SOW Section 8.

Technology stack

  • GIS mapping for service areas, facilities, and planning regions
  • Data repositories for benchmark review and environmental planning data
  • Online engagement support for stakeholder input
  • Shared matrix structure for public engagement tracking
  • Document templates for plan sections, review cycles, and final deliverables

Compliance frameworks

  • Michigan Public Act 451 of 1994, Part 115 requirements
  • EGLE Solid Waste and Materials Management Plan guidance
  • SOW Section 8 and Section 13 technical expectations
  • Public records, meeting documentation, and comment-response tracking

Cross-source validation, version control, data checks, and review cycles supported the plan package before submission.

08 - About KCompute

SLED credentials, not a generic about section.

KCompute (Private) Limited is a software, systems, and professional services company with 25+ years of delivery experience across public institutions, healthcare, education, logistics, and enterprise operations.